Is There Really a Right to a Civil Jury Trial?

I’m Katelyn Holub, an attorney focusing on personal injury law in northwest Indiana.

Welcome to Personal Injury Primer, where we break down the law into simple terms, provide legal tips, and discuss personal injury law topics.

You may have heard that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a right to a jury trial in a civil lawsuit. While that is technically true, judges have over 200 plus years greatly watered down that right.

One of the many ways judges have restricted jury trials is by entertaining a type of motion which asks them to summarily rule on a case and thereby take a case away from a jury.

The motion is not surprisingly called a summary judgment motion.

A summary judgment motion is treated differently in state and federal courts.

Not surprisingly, federal court judges step in to rule on cases, taking them away from the jury, much more frequently than do state court judges.

Under Indiana law, a party moving for summary judgment has the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact exists, and once the moving party has met this burden, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to establish that a genuine issue does in fact exist.

Let’s pause for a second.

Why does the rule require the court and parties to focus on whether a genuine issue of material fact exists?

Well, obviously all lawyers know that the Constitution exists and guarantees a jury trial.

Some lawyers see the Constitution as an obstacle. When people see an obstacle, their tendency is to find a work-around that obstacle.

So the traditional time-tested way around the Constitution is to file a motion with the judge saying in effect “Judge, the facts are so clear and not in dispute, so there is really no need, judge, to waste time calling together a jury. In fact, judge, the facts are so clear that no jury would ever rule in any way except in our favor, so we ask you to summarily rule in our favor, judge.”

As we just said, in Indiana, the nonmoving party can avoid summary judgment and still take their case to a jury by showing the judge that a genuine dispute as to material facts exists.

But the federal standard is much different.

If you are in a federal court, summary judgment is required to be granted against a party who fails to establish an essential element of that party’s case.

This may seem like a slight difference in language, but it is a huge difference. It gives a federal judge much more leeway to take a case away from a jury.

Why is this issue important?

Because if a defendant can somehow land a case in federal court, they have a higher percentage chance of getting the case tossed out of court and avoiding a trial by jury.

Defendants know that statistically, juries are much tougher on defendants overall.

Juries are made up of non-lawyers. Juries often see through legal smoke screens that big corporate defendants raise in court.

A plaintiff’s odds of winning increase greatly if they can get their case heard by a jury.

A defendant’s odds of prevailing increase greatly if a jury never hears the case.

I hope you found this information helpful. If you are a victim of someone’s carelessness, substandard medical care, product defect, work injury, or another personal injury, please call (219) 736-9700 with your questions. You can also learn more about us by visiting our website at DavidHolubLaw.com – while there, make sure you request a copy of our book “Fighting for Truth.”

The post Ep 287 Is There Really a Right to a Civil Jury Trial? first appeared on Personal Injury Primer.

Get the future of podcasts.